Blog

Is Bill Maher in His Own Bubble?

It is really hard to know where to begin in discussing Bill Maher's comments on GMOs and Prop 37.

He regularly runs a feature on his show called "In the Bubble" where he derides Republicans for living in a bubble where ideas float around; ideas that are impervious to refutation by fact.  

Although one​ can illegitimately debate the merits (and demerits) of Prop 37 and biotechnology, there is virtually nothing in this discussion that transcends beyond mere "bubble talk" among anti-biotech advocates. 
​

Here are a few thoughts that occurred to me as I watched this:

  • The interview is with Gary Hirshberg, chairman and co-founder of Stonyfield Farm.  I like Stonyfield products.  But, Hirshberg is far from a dispassionate observer.  Maher is right to point out that Monstanto benefits from sale of chemicals resulting from biotech developments (and from the absence of mandatory labeling).  But, he should also point out that Hirshberg benefits if Prop 37 passes.  The proposition specifically excludes organics, and by implication, Hirshberg's company.  So, by pushing Prop 37, Stonyfield Farm can force their competitors to incur higher costs.  I'm glad there are companies like Stonyfield selling the kinds of products they do but don't forget they have a vested financial stake in the matter.
  • I find it ironic that Hirshberg claims that the Grocery Manufacturers of America and ​Monsanto are "stopping your right to know."  I say ironic because Hirshberg has made a great deal of money precisely by telling people what's in their food.  He profits by selling a more expensive product that has been produced without using certain agricultural practices.  The very existence of his successful company proves that no one is being stopped from knowing or buying alternative products.  
  • Maher's comments claiming a "link" between allergies, cancer, and GMOs is complete nonsense with no basis in scientific fact.  Maher says "How can we get people to connect the dots here?  This is probably why people have so many more allergies now because there is so many more [of these] chemicals."  Where is the scientific evidence for this claim?  I guess it's good the word "probably" was thrown in.  It is true that increased herbicide use is associated with adoption of GMOs.  But, it is also true that adoption of GMOs​ is associated with reduced insecticide use.  Moreover, the average toxicity of pesticides has been falling over time.  But, even if these facts weren't true, I've never seen any credible evidence linking Round-up to allergies.     
  • Hirshberg talks about "chemical inflation" as if pest resistance is somehow new or unique to biotechnology.  Organic methods of dealing with pests can be just as (and in many cases are more) toxic than synthetic methods.  Moreover, weeds and bugs also develop resistance to organic methods of control.  Laying the blame of resistance on biotechnology is a red herring.
  • I wonder why they don't mention that GMO adoption is associated with increased conservation practices like no-till?   I suppose this is one of those facts that won't enter Maher's bubble.  

Biotechnology is not a panacea.  It is likely the case that that Round-up resistant crops have increased the speed at which Round-up resistant weeds developed.  But, if it is true (as Maher and Hirshberg discuss) that Monsanto is really in the seed business to sell chemicals, then who do you think has the BIG interest in preventing the development of resistance to Round-up?  That's one of the reasons Monsanto worked to make sure that resistance to Bt didn't develop as quickly as it otherwise would by initially requiring the planting of refuges and now by putting some non-biotech seed in with the bio-tech seed.  

​So, yes, let's talk about the costs and benefits of biotechnology.  But, let's do it outside the bubble.

Can Labeling Actually Harm Consumers?

That was the question asked in a recent study Stephan Marette and I just published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization.  ​The answer is "maybe."  

Traditional economic models assume that more information (as long as it is accurate) can only help consumers (so long as the cost of providing the information isn't higher than the benefit).  After all, if a consumer doesn't find the information useful, it can simply be ignored.  ​

But, this model assumes consumers are perfectly informed about all controversial issues they confront and that they can fully pay attention to all these competing issues.​

What we show in our paper is that when consumers' attentions are limited (as they almost certainly are), that providing information (even if it is accurate) can - in some cases - actually make the consumer worse off.  How?  Because more information about one topic (like whether foods are made with genetically engineered ingredients) might distract consumers from paying attention from other important topics (like the number of carbs in the food) which has a bigger impact on long-term health.  ​

Here is the paper abstract:​

Information and labeling are popular food policy instruments because of their presumed positive influence on consumer welfare. In a one-good case with unlimited attention, we show consumer welfare is always improved with the provision of accurate information. However, in a two-good case with limited attention, we show that consumer welfare is not always improved with the provision of accurate information. When attention is constrained, welfare may fall with information provision policies irrespective of their costs. The results suggest information and labeling polices may sometimes be counterproductive when attention is limited.

​

​

Effects of Biotechnology on Corn Yields

In relative terms, this suggests that the presence of GM technology may have led to corn yield gains 1.4–1.5 times higher than would have been achieved with traditional crop breeding techniques alone.

​That's from the article The Contribution of Genetic Modification to Changes in Corn Yield in the United States by Elizabeth Nolan and Paulo Santos in the most recent issue of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Want to Know What's In Your Food?

​The Huffington Post just published a piece by Brandon McFadden and me, discussing some of the results of our recent survey of Californians on how they intend to vote on Prop 37.

Our survey revealed most voters supported Prop 37 because they said they have the right to know what is in their food.  Yet:​

If consumers really want to know what's in their food, a bit of web searching would tell them. Yet, our survey revealed that Californians knew next to nothing about biotechnology in food. In fact, 43 percent didn't even know the subject-matter covered by Prop 37. Survey respondents thought about 47 percent of corn and soybean acres are planted with GE seed (as indicated, the reality is actually around 90 percent) and they thought 45 percent of wheat acres were planted with GE seed (the reality is close to zero percent). More than 69 percent didn't know whether any Coke products contained GE (they likely do), and more than 59 percent didn't know whether any Kellogg's products contain GE (they likely do). Maybe that's the point of mandatory GE labels -- to tell consumers things they don't already know. But, we're doing it now. Voluntarily. For free.

​After fully disclosing which crops in the US are genetically modified, we argue that:

It seems many people confuse the "right to know" with the "right to buy." Many people want to avoid foods made with GE, and fortunately there are ways for them currently to do so. Simply look at the back of the package to see if the word corn, soy, sugar beet, canola, or papaya is in the ingredient list. Even without Prop 37, consumers already have access to non-GE foods, which are currently labeled if they choose to buy organic. Sure, organic or non-GE food is more expensive, but the reality is that organic or non-GE food is more expensive to produce. Requiring labels through Prop 37 is not going to change that fact.